ASTM D6951-D6951M (2015)

This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

Designation: D6951/D6951M − 09 (Reapproved 2015)

Standard Test Method for

Use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in Shallow Pavement Applications 1 This standard is issued under the fixed designation D6951/D6951M; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.

1. Sco Scope pe 1.1 Thi Thiss tes testt meth method od cov covers ers the meas measure uremen mentt of the pen pen-etration rate of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer with an 8-kg [17.6-lb] [17.6 -lb] hammer (8-kg [17.6 [17.6-lb] -lb] DCP) throu through gh undis undisturbed turbed soil or compacted materials, or both. The penetration rate may be related to in situ strength such as an estimated in situ CBR (California Bearing Ratio). A soil density may be estimated (Note 1) 1) if the soil type and moisture content are known. The DCP descri describe bed d in th this is tes testt me meth thod od is ty typi pica cally lly us used ed fo forr pavement applications. 1.2 The test method provides provides for an optional 4.6-kg 4.6-kg [10.1lb] sliding hammer when the use of the 8-kg [17.6-lb] sliding mass produces excessive penetration in soft ground conditions. 1.3 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exa exact ct equ equiva ivalen lents; ts; the theref refore ore,, each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in non-conformance with the standard. standard d doe doess not purport purport to add addre ress ss all of the 1.4 This standar safet sa fetyy co conc ncer erns ns,, if an anyy, as asso socia ciate ted d wit with h its us use. e. It is th thee responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro priate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

2. Terminology 2.1 Definitions of Terms Specific to This Standard: 2.1.1 8-kg [17.6-lb] DCP dynamic cone penetrometer with (see Fig. Fig. 1) 1) — a device used to assess an 8-kg [17.6-lb] hammer (see the in situ strength of undis undisturbe turbed d soil or compac compacted ted materials, or both. attachment ment (see Fig. 1) 2.1.2 sliding attach 1) — an an optio optional nal device used in reading the distance the DCP tip has penetrated. It may be fas fasten tened ed to the anvil or low lower er rod to hol hold/s d/slid lidee alo along ng a

1

This test method is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E17 Committee E17 on on Vehicle - Pavement Systems and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E17.41 on Pavement Testing and Evaluation. Current edition approved May 1, 2015. Published July 2015. Originally approved in 2003. Last previous edition approved in 2009 as D6951/D6951M – 09. DOI: 10.1520/D6951_D6951M-09R15.

separate measuring rod, or it may be fastened to the separate rod and slide along a graduated drive rod. 3. Summa Summary ry of Test Method 3.1 The operator operator drives the DCP tip into soil soil by lifting the slidin slid ing g ha hamm mmer er to th thee ha hand ndle le th then en re relea leasi sing ng it. Th Thee to tota tall penetra pen etratio tion n for a giv given en num number ber of blo blows ws is meas measure ured d and recorded recor ded in mm/blo mm/blow w, which is then used to describe stiffness, stiffness, estimate an in situ CBR strength from an appropriate correlation chart, or other material charcharacteristics. 4. Signi Significanc ficancee and Use 4.1 Thi Thiss tes testt meth method od is use used d to assess assess in situ strength strength of undi un dist stur urbe bed d so soil il an and d co comp mpac acted ted ma mater teria ials ls (o (orr bo both th). ). Th Thee penetra pen etratio tion n rat ratee of the 8-k 8-kg g [17 [17.6.6-lb] lb] DCP can be used to estimate in-situ CBR (Califo (California rnia Bearing Ratio), to identif identify y strata str ata thi thickn ckness, ess, she shear ar str streng ength th of str strata, ata, and oth other er mate material rial characteristics. 4.1. 4. 1.1 1 Ot Othe herr tes testt me meth thod odss ex exis istt fo forr DC DCPs Ps wi with th di difffe fere rent nt hammer weights and cone tip sizes, which have correlations that are unique to the instrument. 4.2 The 8-kg [17.6-lb] [17.6-lb] DCP is held vertically and therefore therefore is typically used in horizontal construction applications, such as pavements and floor slabs. 4.3 Th 4.3 This is in inst stru rumen mentt is ty typi pica cally lly us used ed to as asse sess ss mat mater erial ial properties down to a depth of 1000 mm [39 in.] below the surface. The penetration depth can be increased using drive rod extens ext ension ions. s. How Howeve ever, r, if dri drive ve rod exte extensi nsions ons are use used, d, care should sho uld be take taken n whe when n usi using ng cor correla relatio tions ns to esti estimate mate other parameters parame ters since these correlations correlations are only appro appropriate priate for specificc DCP config specifi configuratio urations. ns. The mass and inertia of the device will change and skin friction along drive rod extensions will occur. 4.4 The 8-kg [17.6-lb [17.6-lb]] DCP can be use used d to esti estimate mate the strength characteristics of fine- and coarse-grained soils, granular con constr struct uction ion mate material rialss and wea weak k stab stabiliz ilized ed or mod modifie ified d materials. The 8-kg [17.6-lb] DCP cannot be used in highly stabiliz stab ilized ed or cem cement ented ed mat materia erials ls or for gra granul nular ar mate materia rials ls containing a large percentage of aggregates greater than 50 mm [2 in.].

Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); reserved); Tue Oct 3 05:13:36 EDT 2017 1 Downloaded/printed by National Institute of Technology - Suratkal - Karnatka (National Institute of Technology - Suratkal - Karnatka) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions autho

D6951/D6951M − 09 (2015) 5. Apparatus 5.1 The 8-kg [17.6-lb] DCP is shown schematically in Fig. 1. It consists of the following components: a 16-mm [ 5 ⁄ 8-in.] diameter steel drive rod with a replaceable point or disposable cone tip, an 8-kg [17.6-lb] hammer which is dropped a fixed height of 575 mm [22.6 in.], a coupler assembly, and a handle. The tip has an included angle of 60 degrees and a diameter at the base of 20 mm [0.79 in.]. (See Fig. 2.) 5.1.1 The apparatus is typically constructed of stainless steel, with the exception of the replacement point tip, which may be constructed from hardened tool steel or a similar material resistant to wear. 5.2 The following tolerances are recommended: 5.2.1 Hammer weight-measurement of 8.0 kg [17.6 lb]; tolerance is 0.01 kg [0.02 lb], 5.2.2 Hammer weight-measurement of 4.6 kg [10.1 lb.]; tolerance is 0.01 kg [0.02 lb], 5.2.3 Drop of hammer-measurement of 575 mm [22.6 in.]; tolerance is 1.0 mm [0.04 in.], 5.2.4 Tip angle measurement of 60 degrees included angle; tolerance is 1 degree, and 5.2.5 Tip base diameter measurement of 20 mm [0.79 in.]; tolerance is 0.25 mm [0.01 in.] NOTE 2—A disposable cone tip may be used. The deposable cone tip is held in place with an o-ring, which allows the cone tip to be easily detached when the drive rod is pulled upward after completion of the test. The disposable cone tip is shown schematically in Fig. 3.

5.3 In addition to the DCP, the following equipment is needed: 5.3.1 Tools for assembling the DCP, 5.3.2 Lubricating Oil, 5.3.3 Thread Locking Compound, and 5.3.4 Data Recording form (see Table 1).

FIG. 1 Schematic of DCP Device

4.5 The 8-kg [17.6-lb] DCP can be used to estimate the strength of in situ materials underlying a bound or highly stabilized layer by first drilling or coring an access hole.

5.4 Depending on the circumstances, the following equipment may also be needed or is recommended: 5.4.1 A vertical scale graduated using increments of 1.0 mm [0.04 in.], or measuring rod longer than the longest drive rod if the drive rod(s) are not graduated, 5.4.2 An optional sliding attachment for use with a separate scale or measuring rod,

NOTE 1—The DCP may be used to assess the density of a fairly uniform material by relating density to penetration rate on the same material. In this way undercompacted or “soft spots” can be identified, even though the DCP does not measure density directly.2

4.5.1 A field DCP measurement results in a field or in situ CBR and will not normally correlate with the laboratory or soaked CBR of the same material. The test is thus intended to evaluate the in situ strength of a material under existing field conditions.

2

“METHOD ST6: Measurement of the In Situ Strength of Soils by the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP), Special Methods for Testing Roads,” Draft TMH6, Technical Methods for Highways (TMH), Pretoria, South Africa, ISBN 0 7988 2289 9, 1984, p. 20.

FIG. 2 Replaceable Point Tip

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Tue Oct 3 05:13:36 EDT 2017 2 Downloaded/printed by National Institute of Technology - Suratkal - Karnatka (National Institute of Technology - Suratkal - Karnatka) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions autho

D6951/D6951M − 09 (2015)

FIG. 3 Disposable Cone Tip

5.4.3 A rotary hammer drill or coring apparatus capable of drilling a minimum diameter hole of 25 mm [1 in.]. A larger hole may be required depending on the underlying material or the need for addition tests or sampling, 5.4.4 A wet/dry vacuum or suitable alternative to remove loose material and fluid if an access hole is made before testing, 5.4.5 Field power supply to power items in 5.4.3 and 5.4.4, 5.4.6 Disposable cone tips, 5.4.7 Dual mass hammer (see Fig. 4), and 5.4.8 Extraction jack, recommended if disposable cone tips are not used (see Fig. 5). NOTE 3—A 4.6-kg [10-lb] hammer (see Fig. 4) may be used in place of the 8-kg [18-lbf] hammer provided that the standard drop height is maintained. The 4.6-kg [10-lbf] hammer is used in weaker materials where the 8-kg [18-lbf] hammer would produce excessive penetration. NOTE 4—An automated version of the DCP (ADCP) may be used provided all requirements of this standard with respect to the apparatus and procedure are met. NOTE 5—An automated data collection system may be used provided it measures and records to the nearest 1 mm [0.04 in.] and does not interfere with the operation/results of the devise.

6. Procedure 6.1 Equipment Check— Before beginning a test, the DCP device is inspected for fatigue-damaged parts, in particular the coupler and handle, and excessive wear of the drive rod and replaceable point tip. All joints must be securely tightened including the coupler assembly and the replaceable point tip (or the adapter for the disposable cone tip) to drive rod. 6.2 Basic Operation— The operator holds the device by the handle in a vertical or plumb position and lifts and releases the hammer from the standard drop height. The recorder measures and records the total penetration for a given number of blows or the penetration per blow. 6.3 Initial Reading: 6.3.1 Testing a Surface Layer— The DCP is held vertically and the tip seated such that the top of the widest part of the tip is flush with the surface of the material to be tested. An initial reading is obtained from the graduated drive rod or a separate vertical scale/measuring rod. The distance is measured to the nearest 1 mm [0.04 in.]. Some sliding reference attachments allow the scale/measuring rod to be set/marked at zero when the tip is at the zero point shown in Fig. 2.

6.3.2 Testing Below a Bound Layer— When testing materials underlying a bound layer, a rotary hammer drill or coring apparatus meeting the requirements given in 5.4.3 above is used to provide an access hole to the layer to be tested. Wet coring requires that coring fluid be removed immediately and the DCP test be performed as soon as possible, but not longer than 10 minutes following completion of the coring operation. The coring fluid must not be allowed to soak into or penetrate the material to be tested. A wet/dry vacuum or suitable alternative is used after completion of drilling or coring to remove loose materials and fluid from the access hole before testing. To minimize the extent of the disturbance from the rotary hammer, drilling should not be taken completely through the bound layer, but stopped short by about 10 to 20 mm [0.4 to 0.8 in.]. The DCP is then used to penetrate the bottom portion of the bound layer. This can be a repetitive process between drilling and doing DCP tests to determine the thickness of the layer. 6.3.3 Testing Pavement With Thin Seals— For pavements with thin seals, the tip is advanced through the seal until the zero point (see Fig. 4) of the tip is flush with the top of the layer to be tested. 6.3.4 Once the layer to be tested has been reached, a reference reading is taken with the zero point at the top of that layer and the thickness of the layer(s) cored through recorded. This reference reading is the point from which the subsequent penetration is measured. 6.4 Testing Sequence: 6.4.1 Dropping the Hammer— The DCP device is held in a vertical or plumb position. The operator raises the hammer until it makes only light contact with the handle. The hammer shall not impact the handle when being raised. The hammer is then allowed to free-fall and impact the anvil coupler assembly. The number of blows and corresponding penetrations are recorded as described in 6.5. 6.4.2 Depth of Penetration— The depth of penetration will vary with application. For typical highway applications, a penetration less than 900 mm [35 in.] will generally be adequate. 6.4.3 Refusal— The presence of large aggregates or rock strata will either stop further penetration or deflect the drive rod. If after 5 blows, the device has not advanced more than 2 mm [0.08 in.] or the handle has deflected more than 75 mm [3 in.] from the vertical position, the test shall be stopped, and the device moved to another test location. The new test location should be a minimum of 300 mm [12 in.] from the prior location to minimize test error caused by disturbance of the material. 6.4.4 Extraction— F ollowing completion of the test, the device should be extracted using the extraction jack when using a replaceable point tip. When using a disposable cone, the device is extracted by driving the hammer upward against the handle. 6.5 Data Recording: 6.5.1 A form like the one shown in Table 1 is suggested for data recording. The recorder enters the header information before the test. The actual test data are recorded in column 1 (Number of Blows) and column 2 (Cumulative Penetration in


D6951/D6951M − 09 (2015) TABLE 1 DCP Data Sheet 3 Project: Forest Service Road Location: STA 30+50, 1 M RT of C/L Depth of zero point below Surface:0 Material Classification: GW/CL Pavement conditions: Not applicable Number of BlowsA

Cumulative Penetration mm [in.]B

0 5 5 15 10 5 5 10 5 5 5 5

0 [0] 25 [0.98] 55 [2.17] 125 [4.92] 175 [6.89] 205 [8.07] 230 [9.06] 280 [11.02] 310 [12.20] 340 [13.39] 375 [14.76] 435 [17.13]

Date: 7 July 2001 Personnel: JLS & SDT Hammer Weight: 8-kg [17.6-lb] Weather: Overcast, 25°C, [72°F] Water Table Depth: Unknown Penetration Between Readings mm [in.]C

25 30 70 50 30 25 50 30 30 35 60

Penetration per Blow mm [in.]D

Hammer FactorE

DCP Index mm/blow [in./blow]F

CBR %G

-5 [0.196] 6 [0.238] 5 [0.183] 5 [0.197] 6 [0.236] 5 [0.198] 5 [0.196] 6 [0.236] 6 [0.238] 7 [0.274] 12 [0.474]

-1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

-5 [0.196] 6 [0.238] 5 [0.183] 5 [0.197] 6 [0.236] 5 [0.198] 5 [0.196] 6 [0.236] 6 [0.238] 7 [0.274] 12 [0.474]

-50 40 50 50 40 50 50 40 40 35 18

-[0.98] [1.19] [2.75] [1.97] [1.18] [0.99] [1.96] [1.18] [1.19] [1.37] [2.37]

Moisture %H

A

Number of hammer blows between test readings. Cumulative penetration after each set of hammer blows. C Difference in cumulative penetration (Footnote B) between readings. D Footnote C divided by Footnote A. E Enter 1 for 8-kg [17.6-lb] hammer; 2 for 4.6-kg [10.1-lb] hammer. F Footnote D × Footnote E. G From CBR versus DCP Index correlation. H % Moisture content when available. B

mm); if the moisture content is available, it is entered in column 8. When testing a subsurface layer though a drilled or cored access hole, the first reading corresponds to the referenced reading at the top of the layer to be tested as per 6.3.2. The number of blows between readings may be varied depending on the resistance of the material. Normally readings will be taken after a fixed number of blows, that is, 1 blow for soft material, 5 blows for “normal” materials and 10 blows for very resistive materials. The penetration to the nearest 1 mm [0.04 in.] corresponding to a specific number of blows is recorded. A reading is taken immediately when the material properties or penetration rate change significantly. 7. Calculations and Interpretation of Results 7.1 The estimated in situ CBR is computed using the DCP index (column 6, Table 1) and Table 2 for each set of readings. The penetration per blow may then be plotted against scale reading or total depth. The penetration per blow is then used to estimate in situ CBR or shear strength using the appropriate correlation. For example, the correlation of penetration per blow (DCP) in Table 2 is derived from the following equation recommended by the US Army Corps of Engineers: 3 CBR 5 292/ DCP1.12 for DCP in mm / blow

(1 )

CBR 5 292/ ~ DCP 3 25.4! 1.12 for DCP in in. / blow

(2 )

The above equation is used for all soils except for CL soils below CBR 10 and CH soils. For these soils, the following

equations are recommended by the US Army Corps of Engineers:4 CBR 5 1/ ~ 0.017019 3 DCP! 2 for DCP in mm / blow

(3 )

CBR 5 1/ ~ 0.432283 3 DCP! 2 for DCP in in. / blow

(4 )

for CL soils with CBR < 10 and CBR 5 1/ ~ 0.002871 3 DCP! for DCP in mm / blow

(5 )

CBR 5 1/ ~ 0.072923 3 DCP! in in. / blow

(6 )

for CH soils. 7.1.1 Selection of the appropriate correlation is a matter of professional judgment. 7.2 If a distinct layering exists within the material tested, a change of slope on a graph of cumulative penetration blows versus depth will be observed for each layer. The exact interface is difficult to define because, in general, a transition zone exists between layers. The layer thickness can be defined by the intersection of the lines representing the average slope of adjacent layers. Once the layer thicknesses have been defined, the average penetration rate per layer is calculated. 8. Report 8.1 The report should include all the information as shown in Table 1. The relationship used to estimate the in situ CBR values should also be included.

4

3

Webster, S. L., Grau, R. H., and Williams, T. P., “Description and Application of Dual Mass Dynamic Cone Penetrometer,” Report GL-92-3, Department of the Army, Washington, DC, May 1992, p. 19.

Webster, S. L., Brown, R. W., and Porter, J. R., “Force Projection Site Evaluation Using the Electric Cone Penetrometer (ECP) and the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP),” Technical Report No. GL-94-17 , Air Force Civil Engineering Support Agency, U.S. Air Force, Tyndall Air Force Base, FL, April 1994.


D6951/D6951M − 09 (2015)

FIG. 5 Schematic of DCP Extraction Jack TABLE 2 Tabulated Correlation of CBR versus DCP Index 3 DCP Index mm/blowA

CBR %

DCP Index mm/blowA

CBR %

DCP Index mm/blowA

CBR %

<3 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10–11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18–19 20–21 22–23 24–26 27–29 30–34 35–38

100 80 60 50 40 35 30 25 20 18 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5

39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49–50 51 52 53–54 55 56–57 58 59–60 61–62 63–64 65–66 67–68

4.8 4.7 4.6 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.1 4.0 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.6

69–71 72–74 75–77 78–80 81–83 84–87 88–91 92–96 97–101 102–107 108–114 115–121 122–130 131–140 141–152 153–166 166–183 184–205 206–233 234–271 272–324 >324

2.5 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 <0.5

FIG. 4 Schematic of Dual-Mass Hammer A

For DCP Index in units of in./blow, divide by 25.4.

9. Precision and Bias 9.1 Precision— The within-field-laboratory repeatability standard deviation has been determined to be less than 2 mm/blow [0.08 in./blow].5 It is not possible to determine reproducibility limits for this field test, which is destructive in

nature and the sample is not homogeneous and cannot be replicated in moisture and density in another laboratory. NOTE 6—The repeatability study5 is on granular materials and would correspond to approximately 20 percent or less if expressed as a percentage.

5

Burnham, T. R., “Application of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer to Minnesota Department of Transportation Pavement Assessment Procedures,” MN/RC-97/19, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Saint Paul, MN, 1997, p. 37.

9.2 Bias— No statement is being made as to the bias of the test method at the present time.


D6951/D6951M − 09 (2015) 10. Keywords 10.1 ADCP; aggregate base testing; California bearing ratio; CBR; DCP; disposable cones; dual-mass hammer; dynamic cone penetrometer; in situ testing; paving material testing; shear strength; subgrade testing

BIBLIOGRAPHY (1) Ayers, M. E., “Rapid Shear Strength of In Situ Granualr Materials Utilizing the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer,” Ph.D. Theses, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, 1990. (2) De Beer, M., Kleyn, E. G., and Savage P. F., “Towards a Classification System for the Strength-Balance of Thin Surfaced Flexible Pavements,” Proceedings of the 1988 Annual Transportation Convention (ATC ’88), Session S.443, Vol 3D, Paper 3D-4, Pretoria, July 1988. (3) De Beer, M., “Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) Aided Evolution of the Behaviour of Pavements with Lightly Cementitious Layers,” Division of Roads and Transport Technology, Research Report DPVT-37 , CSIR, Pretoria, South Africa, April 1989. (4) De Beer, M., Kleyn, E. G., and Savage, P. F., “Advances in Pavement Evaluation and Overlay Design with the Aid of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP),” 2nd International Symposium on Pavement Evaluation and Overlay Design, 11th to 15th September 1989 , Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. (5) De Beer, M., “Use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) in the Design of Road Structures,” Tenth African Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Maseru, Lesotho, September 1991. Geotechnics in the African Environment , Blight, et al (eds.), Balkema, Rottedam, Vol 1, 1991, pp. 167-183. Also in Research Report DPVT-187 , Roads and Transport Technology, CSIR, South Africa. (6) De Beer, M., “Use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) in the Design of Road Structures,” Research Report DPVT-18 , Roads and Transport Technology, CSIR, South Africa, 1991, p. 30 . (7) De Beer, M., “Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP), the Development of DCP Pavement Technology in South Africa,” Session 7, course notes from RSA/US Pavement Technology Workshop, at Richmond Field Station, University of California, Berkeley, March 2000. (8) Kessler, K.C., Dynamic Cone Penetrometer User’s Manual . Kessler Soils Engineering Products, Inc., January 2001, Springfield, VA. (9) Kleyn, E. G., “The Use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP),” Report 2/74, Transvaal Roads Department, Pretoria, South Africa, July 1975, p. 35. (10) Kleyn, E. G., Maree, J. H., and Savage, P. F., “Application of a Portable Pavement Dynamic Cone Penetrometer to Determine in situ Bearing Properties of Road Pavement Layers and Subgrades in South Africa,” ESOPT 11 , Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1982. (11) Kleyn, E. G., and Savage, P. F., “The Application of the Pavement DCP to Determine the Bearing Properties and Performance of Road Pavements,” International Symposium on Bearing Capacity of Roads and Airfields, Trondheim, Norway, 1982. (12) Kleyn, E. G., Van Heerden, M. J. J., and Rossouw, A. J., “An Investigation to Determine the Structural Capacity and Rehabilitation Utilization of a Road Pavement Using the Pavement Dynamic Cone Penetrometer,” International Symposium on Bearing Capacity of Roads and Airfields, Trondheim, Norway, 1982. (13) Kleyn, E. G., and Van Heerden,, M. J. J., “Using DCP Soundings to

Optimize Pavement Rehabilitation,” Annual Transport Convention, Session G: Transport Infrastructure , Johannesburg, South Africa, 1983. (14) Kleyn, E. G., in Afrikaans, “Aspects of Pavement Evaluation and Design as Determined with the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP),” M. Eng. Thesis, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa, May 1984. (Approximately 13000 words, 51 Figures and 1 photo.) (15) Kleyn, E. G., Van Van Zyl, G. D., “Application of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) to Light Pavement Design,” Proceedings of First International Symposium on Penetration Testing, Orlando Florida, A.A. Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 1988, pp. 435-444. (16) Livneh, M., “The Relationship Between In Situ CBR Test and Various Penetration Test,” Proceedings of the First Symposium on Penetration Testing, Orlando, Florida, A.A. Balkenma Publishers, Rotterdam, Netherland, 1988. (17) Livneh, M., “Validation of Correlations Between a Number of Penetrations Tests and In Situ California Bearing Ratio Tests,” Transportation Research Record 1219, Transportation Research Record, Washington, DC, 1989. (18) Livneh, M., “The Israeli Experience with the Regular and Extended Dynamic Cone Penetrometer for Pavement and Subsoil Strength Evaluation, Nondistructive Testing of Pavements and Backcalculation of Moduli,” ASTM STP 1375, S. D. Tayabji and E. O. Lukanen, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 1999. (19) “METHOD ST6: Measurement of the In Situ Strength of soils by the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP), Special Methods for Testing Roads,” Draft TMH6, Technical Methods for Highways (TMH), ISBN 0 7988 2289 9, 1984, pp. 19-24. (20) Sampson, L. R., and Netterberg, F., “Effect of Material Quality on the Relationship Between nDCP DN-Value and CBR,” Proceedings of the Annual Transportation Convention, Pretoria, South Africa, Vol 5B, Paper #3, 1990 , p. 12. (21) Scala, A. J., “Simple Methods of Flexible Pavement Design Using Cone Penetrometers,” Proceedings of the Second Australian Soil Mechanics Conference, Christ Church, New Zealand, New Zealand Engineer , 11( 2), 1956, pp. 34-44. (22) Siekmeier, J. A., Young, D., and Beberg, D., “Comparison of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer with Other Tests During Subgrade and Granular Base Chartacteriziation in Minnesota,” Nondestructive Testing of Pavements and Backcalculation of Moduli: Third Volume, ASTM STP 1375, S. D. Tayabji and E. O. Lukanen, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohochen, PA, 1999. (23) Stephanos, G., Stanglerat, G., Bergdahl, V., and Melzer, K. J., “Dynamic Probing (DP): International Reference Test Procedures,” Proceedings of First International Symposium on Penetration Testing, Orlando, FL, A.A. Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 1988.


D6951/D6951M − 09 (2015) (24) Van Vuuren, D. J., “Rapid Determiniation of CBR With the Portable Dynamic Cone Penetrometer,” The Rhodesian Engineer , Vol 7, Number 5, Salisbury, Rhodesia, September 1968, pp. 852-854. (25) Webster, S. L., Grau, R. H., and Williams, T. P., “Description and Application of Dual Mass Dynamic Cone Penetrometer,” Report GL-92-3, Department of the Army, Washington DC, May 1992, p. 19. (26) Webster, S. L., Brown, R. W., and Porter, J. R., “Force Projection

Site Evaluation Using the Electric Cone Penetrometer (ECP) and the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP),” Technical Report No. GL-9417 , Air Force Civil Engineering Support Agency, U.S. Air Force, Tyndall Air Force Base, FL, April 1994. (27) WinDCP 4.0: “Analysis and Classification of DCP Survey Data; User Manual and Software,” 2000, Pretoria: Division of Roads and Transport Technology, CSIR, Divisional Publication: DP-2000/5.

ASTM International takes no position respecting the validity of any patent rights asserted in connection with any item mentioned in this standard. Users of this standard are expressly advised that determination of the validity of any such patent rights, and the risk of infringement of such rights, are entirely their own responsibility. This standard is subject to revision at any time by the responsible technical committee and must be reviewed every five years and if not revised, either reapproved or withdrawn. Your comments are invited either for revision of this standard or for additional standards and should be addressed to ASTM International Headquarters. Your comments will receive careful consideration at a meeting of the responsible technical committee, which you may attend. If you feel that your comments have not received a fair hearing you should make your views known to the ASTM Committee on Standards, at the address shown below. This standard is copyrighted by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States. Individual reprints (single or multiple copies) of this standard may be obtained by contacting ASTM at the above address or at 610-832-9585 (phone), 610-832-9555 (fax), or [email protected] (e-mail); or through the ASTM website (www.astm.org). Permission rights to photocopy the standard may also be secured from the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, Tel: (978) 646-2600; http://www.copyright.com/


ASTM D6951-D6951M (2015)

Recommend Documents